That out of the way, I'll continue with your laundry list you are brining me to task for:
The history of the word war is central to part of the _statement_ I was making. No, Liverwurst is not central, nor am I vying for mental superiority. My _point_ is showing how the word evolved, and why I will not use it to describe the current conflict. What you label as preaching is just me expressing myself. I have innumerable contemplations like this that never get published to anyone… I decided to publish this one, so cut it with the guru allegory.
When I said Iraq was not our enemy, I meant it in the sense before the hostilities started. We are now their enemies by virtue of our invasion.
What I was posting were opinions, as I said... the entire post, fuck all, my entire journal is a mishmash of fact and opinion, useless links, and poetry/songs. You know just as well as I the dangers which can be created when words become THE WORD. The facts were the parts taken from the dictionary.
Opinion: Doing business with someone suggests a relationship which generally precludes open hostility. We sold them what they have for the most part, unless they were savvy enough to wheedle some things out of the Russians, or anyone else willing to peddle manifestations of ideas that simply have no place in our world.
We are, quite clearly, the aggressors in this conflict... that cannot be denied. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we were defending our interests in Kuwait, and protecting our other interests from possible chain-of-events takeover. Now, we are just going in because Dubya wants justice, Cheney wants Oil, and Rummy likes the idea of being able to expand his spidery touch even further under wartime conditions; when the no contemplative of the nation will blindly follow "for the good of our boys over there".
Note: I said BLINDLY and NONCONTEMPLATVE. If someone weighs all this and still thinks we are doing the right thing; bully for them! I have no beef if they put some thought into it... the amount of people who don't though is what keeps me up at night sometimes.
The few items I cited about Saddam personally are what I "know" for circulation. I stated that I really have no interest in hanging out with him, and that he probably is a bad man.
However, in my book, there is a big difference between a bad man, and an enemy. A bad man can be dealt with to meet certain ends. An enemy is worthy of no break, no reprieve, and deserves nothing but the worst. May seem like intellectual hair-splitting, but it isn’t. Mussolini was a bad man, so was Stalin... didn't stop the US from playing ball with them once they "saw the light".
Hitler had no interest in changing his position on things... that made him an enemy. Who is to say that if the Brits hadn't fallen that we wouldn't have been working along with the man with the funny moustache to rid the world of communism forever? Who is to say if they would have needed our help?
It is within these bounds that I am labeling Saddam a non-enemy. He may have enough anthrax to take out the 48 continental states and Alaska, but if he isn’t _doing_ anything, he's not an enemy... not yet. Wait, watch, do not commit the way we have, especially when others have been through and said "y'know, we aren’t really sure yet, but we don't think he has enough anthrax to do even that..."
Saddam's Arab support is good for him, but in terms of "winning" the conflict we have brought to him, it will do nothing other than irritate and prolong the eventual process.
I did not claim that the government planned September 11. I said they knew about it. Several branches did, with more than enough time that they could have implemented a silly color warning system before planes were taken over.
But wait, without ground zero, and a big hole in the Pentagon, who was going to vote to use all the $ needed, and the oversights on the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution?
I am not saying that the US government necessarily had a postit note or Outlook schedule detailing the exact plans that the terrorists were going to take.
I am suggesting that it is in their best interest to make sure they happened... looking at the last two years; I'd say 9/11 was like a happy steroid shot for federal executive power.
I'm suggesting there is a possibility that US funds were involved in the development of these people, and their organization. I did not even state it as fact.
My angst over this conflict is that we are not on a Crusade. We are out to take what we want, under the premise of international security; despite an overwhelming expression against the action by that international community. My angst is that one man can get before one of the most powerful empires in the history of the world (that we know of) and drop idealistic turds on the microphone, justifying what is clearly a grab for dough.
I am glad we see eye to eye on the POW's though... and the fact that all this horse caca means spit in the ocean when all things come down to it.
I do not seek your respect in what I see as the best possibilities for humans, as a species, to attain harmony within itself, and with the environment. I have looked at the world, and tried to find scenarios for a "positive" method. What I find is corporate corruption, international oppression, terrorism, plague, starvation, near-slave labor, torture, rape, and unjust imprisonment and execution, in the name of "Freedom".
You see my desire for the wanton destruction of what is as a negative solution. From a species point of view, the best thing that happened to us, ever, was the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs. Our legacy is built on the bones of our predecessors, which, after ages, are what we are going to war over.
I mock those who think that there is a way to save the world the same way I would mock someone who took sugar pills to cure aids. It is a nice hope, and it may create a sense of peace and well-being, but it is not a cure to the disease. Lessening the symptoms does not stop the enevitable breakdown. If you want peace and well being,and a symptom free world, go for it. I don't... I want to see a cure, even if the treatment has a chance of killing the patient.
I find it distasteful that you see my attitude as apathetic or mentally/ethically lethargic. I have looked, read, soul searched, hunted, and searched again. Perhaps I am too pragmatic to pursue worldly philosophy in a way which jives with your way of looking at things. I don't know...
LUKE 6:47-49 (KJV)
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep,and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
What I'm saying, is that I agee with whoever attributed this quote to JC, on a metaphorical level. I believe there is some rock in our species... but each successive generation after we turned into an agrarian society has been a layer of silt, sand, and earth. Anything we could build from what is, is going to be on that foundation. I think that to have any chance, we need to get back to the stone, or the flood which we are not at the helm of will ensure our ruin is great.
I am not saying that there will magically be a wonderful harmony between man and man and man and nature if things regress back to our formal fight for survival. I'm saying at least under those circumstances, there is a _chance_ for it. In the current tumorous state of our species, I see none, so I will waste no energy in developing and marketing sugar pills.